Take it or Leave it.

New home!

2010-03-13T19:57:00.002-05:00

Hello freinds!

I'm very excited to announce that Take it or Leave it has a new home! For now on you can go to deanlentini.com for everything Take it or Leave it, also this will be the future home of my personal family blog. God bless and come check out what's going on with Take it or Leave it! - Dean

(click the link below)

deanlentini.com

Goals: I Need Some of Those

2010-02-19T00:18:00.009-05:00

I don’t know about you, but sometimes I find myself going though the motions of life without any sure direction. So, I started to think, I wonder if people in the Bible felt the same way? I wonder if Paul ever felt like he didn’t have a true direction in his life? I was unable to find certain instance where it seemed as if Paul had lost his purpose, but I did find many mentions of his purpose; Paul’s goals. He had a personal goal of accomplishing the call of God in his life

Philippians 3:10-14, “¹⁰ that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, ¹¹that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.¹²Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. ¹³Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, ¹⁴I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.”

Paul’s goals were in essence to be like Christ in all he did, or as he says in Ephesians to be an “imitator of Christ.”There are other passages where Paul alludes to his goal as being the preaching of the Word, being poured out as a drink offering for the church, going to Spain, etc. Paul had goals. If goals are good enough for Paul, they are good enough for me.

But how do I now what my goals should be? I know they have to be in line with the calling and desire of God, but how do I know what He wants my goals to be? It’s through His Word. It is through the word of God that one can understand what their goal(s) should be in life. No, there isn’t some section in the Bible where God has written down all your goals in a neat little list. But the Holy Spirit uses the word to illuminate us, He uses His Word to show us His path for our lives.

He also uses prayer. Prayer is plain communication with God, it is worshipful talk to a loving Savior. It’s how we speak to God, thanks be to Christ our High Priest. Because of Christ’s finished work on the Cross we can now boldly enter into communication with God. Now, this boldness does not mean, ya kick in the door and say, “Ok, God this is what you’re gonna do…” This isn’t a Clint Eastwood movie. This boldness is speaking of the audacious concept of even being able to speak with God, never mind ask Him to do something for you. This is an honor, and always should be done with humility. As a Christian we now have the beautiful gift of asking for our God’s help.

We ask God, for His input in setting goals for ourselves. This is no better illustrated than with Jesus asking God to make a different goal for Him, “IF IT BE YOUR WILL.” The point is we need to stay in communication with God in setting goals, why? 1. He is God and deserves to hear our goals 2. He already has plans for us 3. He loves hearing His name praised, even in making decisions

We should make goals with a few strings attached. Goals are to be set in prayer, in close connection to the Scriptures, Spirit-led, open to God’s Will, and in humility knowing that God is sovereign over our goals. I think everyone should at some point take some time and really contemplate what your goals are. Be specific in them, it’s ok to dream big. Our God is a big God, He tends to enjoy granting those big dreams. Remember Proverbs 29:18, “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” With that in mind these are a few of my goals that I am leaning on God for guidance:

Marry a Godly Woman

Graduate from a Baptist college

Begin shepherding a church before the age of 23

Grow my first church’s love for Christ

Have as many children as the Lord see fit

Grow the attendance of my church by at least 20%

Graduate from a good Baptist Seminary

Plant Logos Baptist Church by the age of 35

Celebrate my 20 yr. Anniversary with my wife

Grow Logos Baptist church into a Christ-centered fellowship of 150, mainly through conversions

Love my Savior more and more

Obtain my doctorate in theology

Celebrate my 50 yr. Anniversary with my wife

Make sure my children are living for Jesus

For people to get saved at my funeral

to know that my goals are not infallible, and that God has free reign on my life

So, make some goals, then honor God through those goals. That’s my opinion. Take it or leave it. - Dean

Where's the Power? Where's the Big Transformation?

2010-01-24T21:26:00.004-05:00

If you're any type of theologian, you know that once one has become a born-again believer a change in that person's life takes place. This change is supposed to be dramatic, drastic, and immediate. At least thats what I have always been told. That's what I've preached. We all know that the Bible talks about the drastic, dramatic, and immediate change in Saul. His change is so emphatic that his name was changed to Paul. Complete change had occurred in this man.

Since, he had such a dramatic change we expect all Christians to have such an amazingly immediate transformation. So what happens when there isn't a big transformation? Was this person truly saved? What happens when there seems to be no power?

To answer the question about their salvation. The Bible tells us that yes there will be change, but how big and how quick is not told. Before we look at the effects of the change one must ask what is the change to begin with? The change is a change in nature. It is the death of our nasty sinful life and the beginning of a completely new life. It is regeneration. It is a new heart, and new spirit. Ezekiel 36:25-27,

"Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them."

Our desires have changed while before we did not care about God nor His Word, with the new heart and new spirit we long for God's Word and desire to fulfill His Word. We want to be do-ers of the Word.So, the change is not external, but internal. It is the core of who we are as individuals. It is within us. Our passion has changed.

So is it fair to measure if a person is saved, or if he is "growing" by one's visible external change? Absolutely not. This is a big misconception. If you are wondering why do I not see a big evident transformation? Where's the power? Maybe you are looking in the wrong place. When you are questioning your salvation or spiritual maturity, maybe you should be looking at your desires, motives, and passions instead of outer displays of transformation.

Look at Matthew 5:6, "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled." This is talking about a Believer's desire to be holy and righteous like their Savior. If you are burdened about your sin, repentant, and desire change to be holy, I would be pretty confident about your position. Now the outer changes are effects of the inner change in desires.

Spiritual growth is hard. It isn't a mystical on/off switch. It is an all out fight. Its your new desires (for Christ), against the desires of the flesh. While I do believe in perseverance of the saints (for the most part), I think that Calvinists sometimes over-simplify the battle of spiritual growth. It is like an old western fight, its a brawl. And sometimes, maybe a lot of times, we lose. But that dosn't mean you're losing the war. Ask youself this, who's power are you fighting under?

If you are wondering where is the power? Where is the big transformation? Just look at what Christ has done for you, examine the change in desire from sin to holiness, and act or work that inner change out under the unction of the Spirit. That's my opinion. Take it or leave it. - Dean

(also see Spiritual Growth: What is it and How Does it Work?)

2012: The end of the world??

2009-11-19T19:00:00.003-05:00

This movie has gotten a lot of hype lately. I’ve heard dozens upon dozens of people saying that they are truly scared for what “might happen in 2012.” For many unsaved people, there is no reason not to think that 2012 really could be the end. So, I want to take a time out from politics and theology and focus on culture and history.

So first let’s take a look at the movie’s storyline (note I have not seen it but this is from critiques of the movie). The main jist of the movie is this: There’s something wrong with the earth’s core and has been for some time, a few governments knew about this and decided to keep it secret, they built “arks” to salvage all they could of humanity and life as they knew it, the cat comes out of the bag when the earth begins to “die,” it then becomes a mad rush to these “arks” for a shot at survival, the earth goes boom, its 2012, the end (ha-ha… get it?).

This is all derived from a “prophecy” of the Mayans. I put quotation marks around “prophecy” because it wasn’t even meant to be a prophecy. The Mayans were strongest from 300 A.D. to 900 A.D. They developed a lengthy calendar called The Mesoamerican Long Count calendar. The Mesoamerican Long Count calendar simply ends on the date, it resets every 1,872,000 days (also known as a “Great Circle”). Now, from that many people have speculated why they decided to stop writing their calendar (not caring that it was simply a reset, a winding of the clock if you will). There have been numerous theories including, apocalypse (as in the movie), aliens coming and abducting all of mankind (a prominent view, which should show you how credible this whole idea is), and a spiritual awakening for mankind.

Let’s just assume (which would be wrong to do) that this end of the calendar on December 21^st, or 23^rd, 2012 was a “prophecy.” There is absolutely no way for these people to know the future. Their way of life was crude, yes they were literate and had some skill in mathematics, but could they really predict what scientists (with technology that the Mayans could not have even imagined) today cannot? Absolutely not. Just look at their lifestyle and tell me that their science was beyond ours today, toward the end of their era (most likely the time of the calendar being written) human sacrifices were customary because it pleased the “Chaac” (rain god), that they were created by the Sky, and that men’s appendages were made of corn meal. (I find myself singing, “I think you’re crazy!” – gnarls Barkley)

Let’s also consider the fact that the Mayans are gone. If they were so extremely intelligent and knew when the earth was going to die, why in world could they not have seen their own culture dying out relatively soon? Why could they not change their fate of being completely and utterly wiped out? Note that most of this destruction came from themselves. An estimated 1,000,000 Mayans died due to their civil wars. It’s the classic question, if you’re so smart, why are you dead? (I.e. why has your civilization gone extinct?)

There are a few remnants of Mayan descendents, not many. So what do these descendants of the once powerful civilization have to say about 2012? They overwhelmingly say that it’s all myth. I think the Mayan archaeologist, Jose Huchm puts it best, “If I went to some Mayan-speaking communities and asked people what is going to happen in 2012, they wouldn't have any idea. That the world is going to end? They wouldn't believe you. We have real concerns these days, like rain.”

Don’t get me wrong an end is coming, its just not the end some naked dude decided to think up before sacrificing his brother (harsh? Maybe.). The end of this world was told by another man (love the quote by the Jewish Historian Josephus “If it be lawful to call him a man”), named Jesus. He revealed everything we needed to know about the end, that’s why its called the Revelation of Jesus Christ. He told us (through the Apostle John) that He was coming back two more times. Once in the air, to gather his flock. And the last time to bring judgment and establish His Kingdom. All the other ideas of the end are false, and largely copies of the Bible’s end.

Some might say that this is arrogant to proclaim, but the Word of God is the only perfect truth (read Psalm 119). And I would also like to point out that there is nothing new under the sun. Take the movie for example: 1. The Mayan culture had no concept of an apocalypse, it was borrowed by Western ideologies (stemmed from the Old Testament) 2. “Arks”?? ? 3. Noah??? 4. The President quoting Psalm 23… the list could go on for days. The fact is the world is not ending on December 21^st, 2012.

This whole concept of the end of the world in 2012, and the movie scaring thousands of people, is ridiculous. And it shows just how finite we humans are. We are so scared of their being an end to our way of life, existence, and our consciousness. I’m reminded of when I was a very young child, sitting by the window imagining what it would be like if Christianity was false and if I died and ceased to exist. I would think hard about nothing, trying to overcome the fear of being completely absent from existence. It never worked; I would to understand it and then begin to cry because it was horrifying. And that’s what scares everyone, their own end.

The end of the world is the scariest thing most could ever imagine. But maybe we should stop focusing on the physical and consider that perhaps what we are scared of the most is the end, when we stand before Almighty God and are judged according to our sin, whether we have repented, and whether we are covered by the blood of Christ. 2012, will come and go (perhaps we will be raptured out before then, but the earth will go on) and yet another man will be stuck with thousands of dollars wasted on a bomb shelter and hundreds of gallons of water sitting in it just like he was nine years ago. That’s my opinion. Take it or leave it. - Dean

Spiritual Growth: What is it and How Does it Work?

2009-11-05T17:03:00.003-05:00

When talking about the topic of spiritual growth one must first understand the term and have a working definition. So what does spiritual growth mean? Are we some type of Christian tree? Are we progressing to a more conscious state of spiritual awareness (that’s what Deepak Chopra would say)? No, spiritual growth can be simply defined as the continual process of being conformed to the image of Jesus Christ.

Now, I know many people would say that spiritual growth is more complex than that, but…they are wrong. Think about it, what could be more infinitely complex than the Savior? What could be more evasive than having the character of God? Nothing. Spiritual growth is the hardest thing in life. But it is what we are to strive for; it is what we are predestined to do. (Romans 8:29-30)

Paul tells us that spiritual growth is a lifelong (and beyond) process. Philippians 3:12-14, “Not that I have already obtained this (conformity with Christ, specifically the Resurrection) or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me His own.

Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead,

I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.”

The call of a believer in their life is to continually be conformed to the image of Christ. But how is this accomplished? And is there a “best” way or more “efficient way of doing so? Again, while others would say that this also a very complex question and write for days on end about how it can be done, my answer is simple and brief. I would say that the key to spiritual growth (conformity to Christ) is to walk in the Spirit.

Walking in the Spirit is paramount in a Christian’s life. It is only through the Spirit that we are able to resist temptation, sin, and the devil. Paul says, “Walk in the Spirit and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.” (Galatians 5:16) Walking in the Spirit means yielding to the desires of the Spirit, if you are yielding to the desires of the Spirit, you are being conformed to the image of the Son. It is simple logic, seeing that this is the goal of the Spirit.

Now those are the over-arching ideas if you will. But what about the practicality of it? What about the ‘Nitty gritties?” When you are walking in the spirit a few things will come as an effect of it. You will constantly be in fellowship with God (prayer), you will constantly be in the Word, and you will constantly tell no to sin. You will truly be living a life pleasing to God.

Now many people have been trying to figure out the best way to grow spiritually and they do so with a convoluted idea of what it is. They seem to think that spiritual growth is feeling better about your Savior, talking about Him more, praying more “passionately” (in other words starting off with something “better” than “Dear Heavenly Father”), fasting for more than one day at a time (impossible for any true Baptist), and going on more mission trips. But is that in the Bible? No.

While some of these are effects of walking in the Spirit they are not true indicators of spiritual growth. Let me give you an illustration of spiritual growth. A new believer is like a newly planted tree, he is small and stubby. Now what He needs is water, the water of walking in the spirit. He also needs sunlight, the rays of yielding to the Spirit. As he walks in the Spirit (by yielding his desires to God, and being dependent on Him for everything) he begins to grow (spiritual growth; conformity with Christ). As he grows, he begins to bear fruit like victory over sin, more time spent in the Word, a passion for reaching the lost, etc.

You see the fruit, isn’t the actual growth. The fruit is an effect of the growth. If the fruit was the growth that would mean that you are doing the work and not God. Which is incorrect, the Spirit is doing the work through you. While you are responsible for your own spiritual maturity, the Holy Spirit is the one doing the work, all you are doing is continually yielding yourself to and walking in the Spirit.

Saddleback church has a process for spiritual growth I found interesting. It’s a twelve step plan:

1. 1. Commit your life to Christ. The most important decision you'll ever make!

Get baptized. Make this outward expression of your inward commitment of faith.
Commit to showing up consistently to our weekend services. One of the best ways to develop your spiritual life is to meet regularly with other believers.
Attend CLASS 101. Class 101 is our basic introduction to our church family.
Check out a small group.
Commit to a daily time with God. Download a Bible reading plan: 30 Days | 90 Days | 1 Year
Deepen your Bible study skills by downloading and following this devotional study form.
Check out the Spiritual Growth Center for lots of great tools and resources.
Make the I CARE commitment and start praying for your friends and family.
Serve in a ministry team. You're never more like Jesus than when you are serving others because of him. If you're looking for significance and fulfillment, then start serving today!
Host a small group. We are always looking for leaders so we can connect others into new groups, maybe it's time for you to step up and host a group.
Go on a PEACE trip. If you want to make a difference globally, maybe it's time for you to step out in faith and serve on a PEACE team. Contact us today for more info.

Again, fruit is not the actual growth, just an effect. I would say that a simple breakdown would look something like this (a prerequisite would be that you are already a believer with no unconfessed sin in your life) 1. Yield to the Spirit, 2. Be controlled by the Spirit, 3. Start over again. Always remember that our spiritual growth or conformity to Christ is for the glory of God. That’s my opinion. Take it or leave it. - Dean

Contemplation on Evolution’s Faults

2009-10-31T20:44:00.001-04:00

Evolution has a numerous amount of intellectual pit falls. To be honest, there have been too many to count, mainly because it’s wrong. But as I listened to a pastor preach about the image of God and what that means, something really struck a chord about Evolution. We, human beings, dwell on beauty and have emotions. We can feel, and not just vague feelings of sorrow like a dog whimpering after he is disciplined for chewing on its master’s slippers. But man can feel intensely, we are passionate beings.

We are people of passion because our Creator is a God of passion. We are created in His likeness, His image. Humans feel emotions. This simple fact cuts evolution at the knees. It paralyzes Darwinism. Evolution teaches that the key to life is survival. This is the key for every living cell, including people, animals, plants, everything. If that’s all we are here to do its quite pointless isn’t it? You might think I’m going on a tangent, but I’m getting to my point. According to Darwinism, every “evolutionary advance to human life” was for a reason – surviving. Yet, one must consider the question; do we need to feel to survive?

If life was simply about survival wouldn’t it have been easier (and a couple “million” years less) to numb our painfully pointless existence and simply not feel? It would make life a whole lot “easier!” It’s quite obvious that animals and plants do not feel the same way as humans. An evolutionary animal activist might say, no. But consider this, animals react to their environment, they are dependent upon their environment to know which emotion to display (Skinner was correct, other than the subject of course). E.g. a cat might be “happy,” but why? It just got fed. A cat might be “sad,” but why? You hid its favorite toy. The point is, an animal’s feelings are reactions to their various circumstances.

One might say that this is the same for people. A boy is sad, why? His father died. A woman is happy, why? She just got married. Are these reactions? Yes. But, what about those who are joyful in the face of disturbing and difficult situations? What about the people who are praising God, yet are being whipped and beaten for their faith? This separates us from animals and thus from evolutionary thought. This is not evolutionary; it is not in the best interest of the person displaying gratitude to God yet being led to the slaughter. This shows that true emotions, not just reactions but true emotions, disprove Darwinism’s claim about life being a simple struggle for existence.

If we have emotions, which we do, it is for a purpose. Otherwise, why? There are essentially two ways of life. You can either live for self, which includes all the systems of the world (evolution being one). Or, you can live for God, the system found in God’s Word. Are emotions for your own benefit? The obvious answer is no (unless it is done for God, which in turn God allows it to be a blessing to us). So logically, the only alternative is for God. Our emotions are for the benefit, or glory of God. Because once again, we are a people of passion because our Creator is the God of passion.

These conscious decisions to display emotion, to show passion is yet just another way the Designer is proven without the Bible (the irrefutably best illustration of God’s existence). Emotions are yet just another way to give glory and honor to the One who called us according to His Will. That’s my opinion. Take it or leave it. - Dean

Dear the "Emergent Church,"

2009-09-07T22:46:00.003-04:00

My brothers, your voice has been heard. Your passion has been displayed, and for that I am sincerely grateful and so our Master. Due to your perseverance, the church has been made aware that we do have things to work on. We are not perfect. We are in desperate need of change in some areas. Areas such as being more passionate, missional, and being able to communicate more effectively in our culture and communities. Your sheer passion to be followers of Jesus has given me much joy.

But, I (and our Lord) have this against you. In you're diligent attempt to be followers of the person of Jesus, my brothers you have forgotten and forsaken His message. His message was the same as His cousin, John - repentence. Primarily, He came to seek and to save, secondly to be an example of a God-honoring life to His redeemed Bride - the church.

This message was no "secret" (Brian), but it was what He preached. Freinds, you know that preach means to proclaim with authority. This message was "yelled from the rooftops," if you will.

Paul affirmed this message when He spoke at Mars Hill (Yes, Rob this is for you too), "But now [God] commands all men to repent." This is the message Jesus preached, and the one we too should preach. Not some mystical message that goes against and/or denies the Word of God.

Friends, you have been swayed by the enemy, to believe that the infallible Word of God was written for us to simply know how to follow Jesus, but John is clear. John 20:31, "But these [the Gospel of John] are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

My brothers, do not forsake the Gospel. For, it truly is the power of God unto salvation. There is life after deathand two destinations. Friends, I earnestly believe you know this, but as shepherds of your flock you must make this clear to your members, friends, and family. It is our commanded vocation given to us by our loving Savior and Lord Jesus Christ. This is our calling - to shepherd.

Brothers, you are the shepherds of your church,community, group, whatever you want to call it. But Good shepherds do not mislead their flock, and consequently become lost. They know where to go, how to lead their flock. This must be us.

While, this is nearly an impossible task, it is what we are to strive for. To know our God, what He has communicated to us in the Bible, and know how to apply His Word in our lives and the lives of others. As shepherds, we must be sure not to mislead our flock.

We cannot be unsure, uncertain, or doubtful about God's Word. It is the Truth. We must study this Truth, and apply it. This doubt that has been plaguing your movement needs to end. It is not arragant to be certain, brothers. It is arragant to believe your word, thought, or opinion is greater than God's, i.e. the Bible. The virgin birth, the Resurrection, election are all true because the Truth says it is true. And, if you truly desire to hear "Well done, thou good and faithful servant", you must come to the realization of the Word of God being the ultimate authority for everything.

Lastly, brothers you are tearing apart the church. I believe that your movement, dialogue, conversation etc. is very similar to Saul. You sincerely believe you are doing a great work for God, but in truth you are "ravaging the church."

I know this statement is harsh, But I hope that it is apparent that I have genuine love and concern for you. I also hope that these words have been of the "faithful are the wounds of a friend" genre.

In closing, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." So stop dividing, stop misinterpreting, and stop giving into the Enemy. (Ephesians 4:14) "Do not be tossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine." Rather, "But as for you teach what accords with sound doctrine." (Titus 2:1)

To God be the glory always and throughout eternity,
Your Friend,
Dean

A "Sad" Day For the World? Are You Kidding Me?

2009-07-08T03:20:00.012-04:00

(For the record, I cannot believe that I'm writing on this, but its been going on far too long)

”My heart is overcome with sadness for the devastating loss of my true friend Michael. He was an extraordinary friend, artist and contributor to the world. I join his family and his fans in celebrating his incredible life and mourning his untimely passing.” - Brooke Shields

I come to you today with great sadness, acknowledging the loss of the greatest entertainer in the history of mankind. For me he was more than that, he was my idol, he was a role model, he was someone to cry to when my childhood was unbearable, he was a brother, he was a dear friend.” - Corey Feldman

“I would not be the artist, performer, and philanthropist I am today without the influence of Michael.” Jackson, he said, “transcended the culture. He broke barriers, he changed radio formats. With music, he made it possible for people like Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama to impact the mainstream world. His legacy is unparalleled Michael Jackson will never be forgotten.” - Usher

“The world has suffered a GREAT loss today Michael Jackson my thoughts and prayers are with his family, friends, and fans God bless.” - Heidi Montag

"He created a comfort level, where people that felt they were separate became interconnected with his music. ... Those young kids grew up from being teenage, comfortable fans of Michael's to being 40 years old and being comfortable to vote for a person of colour to be the president of the United States of America. Michael did that. Michael made us love each other. Michael taught us to stand with each other." - Rev. Al Sharpton.

"This is a moment that I wish that I didn't live to see come. But as much as I can say that and mean it, I do know that God is good and I do know that as much as we may feel - and we do - that we need Michael here with us, God must have needed him far more." - Stevie Wonder.

"He was a true gift and there are very few that have come to the magnitude of influence that he had on the world." - Neil Portnow

On, June 25th 2009 (the day I got engaged) Michael Jackson died. Nearly two weeks later and the world is still appealingly "grieving." All the quotes above are filled with so much "love and adoration" for a "superstar performer," but let me just tell you I am sick of it! I am sorry for his family (especially his children), and I'm sorry that it happened, but it is time for the world to get over it.

Why has this man so infatuated our culture? What's the big deal? Sure, he was a "great" singer, and hey the moon walk is pretty awesome, but why does the world care so much? They would say that it is because of the way that his music made them feel when they listened to it, they would say it was because of his friendliness and "genuine care" for others; this is why he was a "great" man.

But let's just take some time to look at the facts, its time for the legacy of the "King of pop" to face the music. Although he was never convicted this is what he was accused of being an Anti-Semite pedophile. Both of these accusations were made with clear indications of their validity.

For instance his lyrics in the original version of They Don't Care About Us (which I will not repeat). These lyrics were obviously anti-Israel and Jackson publicly apologized. He was also caught on tape calling Jews "leaches." It is quite clear he had no respect for Jews nor their culture. This is clearly against Scripture; I do not think I need to go much furthur than that.

He was also very publicly accused of being a pedophile. This was made clear by Martin Bashir's interview with Michael Jackson at his home - Never Land Ranch. In this interview it was made evident that Jackson was a very sick(mentally) man. He was a child in his mind, always talking about his childhood and how it made him into the person he was at that time. It was actually disturbing when his "friend" came and talked to Bashir.

The friend was young boy. He was happy to be able to talk on television and be seen with Jackson. At times the boy even seemed cocky and prideful about it. Referring to how Jackson would call late at night when his parents were sleeping. To be perfectly honest, it was uber creepy! Then to top that off, the boy and Jackson hold hands and continue to discuss how Jackson would "share his bed" with the boy.

As if that was not enough, you have quotes from Michael Jackson himself saying, "It's not just boys, and I've never invited just boys to come in my room. C'mon, that's just ridiculous.... I have never invited anyone into my bed, ever. Children love me. I love them. They follow me. They want to be with me. But anybody can come in my bed. A child can come in my bed if they want." I can give an excellent summary of that statement in one word - gross!

Despite these rumors and allogations, his daughter Paris was able to say, at his funeral, "I just want to say, ever since I was born, Daddy has been the best father you could ever imagine..." While it is a tear-jercker to hear that from his daughter, it just isn't true. i won't even talk about it. You watch, and then decide. (forgive the replay, I didn't want to edit it)

There is a lot more that I could talk about like his thoughts on his own appearance, his nasty songs that only referred to sex, or his ridiculous ideologies evidenced in his music videos. But I will not, I will just say that the world might miss him. But Satan doesn't, if you know what I mean. It is quite evident that he was in no way a Christian. In fact it is clear from his lifestyle that in his heart, he was a bitter (probable reason for his "untimely" death) immature man. A man that never had a love for Jesus, but in fact a love for the material. While Smokey Robinson's quote, "You don't think you'll live to see them gone. . . . He is going to live forever and ever and ever and ever", is true, he's not living in Heaven, that's for sure. I like this quote, " The King of pop is now standing before the King of Kings" - Leo Gallant

His life was a sad one. Always searching for something to make him happy, but never finding it. All he needed was Jesus, all the world needs is Jesus, and all you need is Jesus. That's the lesson we all can learn from this tragedy of a life. Don't be like Michael Jackson, find your comfort, happiness, and fulfillment in the person of Jesus Christ and His finished work on the cross. Because while it might be fun to do the moonwalk for awhile, you're going to be doing a lot of running around in Hell for eternity. That's my opinion. Take it or leave it. - Dean

Where's the Outcry From the Chruch?

2009-06-02T01:31:00.003-04:00

Have you been paying attention to the news lately? If you have, you might be very scared for the cause of Christ in our nation. Two separate stories from each coast is the reason for this fright. Before we look at these stories let’s just pause and remember that this nation was founded on Godly principles found in the Bible. While we were founded by Godly men with a good vision, I believe that we have utterly lost our way. You might be thinking to yourself, “Why is he saying this, I mean we still say One nation under God and In God We Trust is still on our money.” But just look at what the president has said recently on his trip to Europe...

Also, the President said this statement when visiting the muslim nation of Turkey, “One of the great strengths of the United States is ... we have a very large Christian population -- we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

So the President has made it clear that this nation is not a Christian nation. This is made evident also in the recent news that I alluded to earlier. In San Diego, Calif. A pastor named David Jones has a Bible study and time of food and fellowship in his house on regular basis (notice not a church service). Well, on Good Friday this past April, they were having their usual study when a county official knocked on the pastor’s door. The official asked the pastor some questions, and then told him that he was “conducting an unlawful use of land as they were having a religious assembly that was a violation of code. “ He was then told to either disband or apply for a major use permit. The permit, in usual cases, costs many thousands of dollars. Remember this is the privacy of their own home!

In Pennsylvania, a judge ruled that a mother could not read the Bible in her son’s show and tell project in Kindergarten. The project was to tell the class all about themselves. So naturally, the little boy wanted to read his favorite book – The Bible. The Marple Newtown School District had a fit! They took the mother to court over it. Finally having this decision made was much to their joy. They insisted that the mother was trying to brain-wash the children into becoming a Christian. They were “protecting the children’s minds.” As if listening to Scripture would poison their minds or something (anyone offended yet?).

These stories are just signs of the times. No longer is this nation Christian, no longer is prayer or Bible reading allowed in our schools, and now the government is trying to make it harder for us to assemble as Christian believers to worship and fellowship. And what is the Body of Christ doing about it...*cricket*…*cricket*…NOTHING! That’s what we are doing!! I’m sorry if I come across as militant, actually no I’m not. I believe that Christians should be militant when it comes to our religious freedoms being stripped away.

Ever since that idiot decision by the Supreme Court in 1962 with Engel v. Vitale, our nation has been on a steady Christian decline. And again there is no outcry from the church. Why? Why are so few taking a stand? I believe that the reason to this question can be summed up in one statement. We believers are ashamed of our Savior. Unlike Paul we cannot say, “For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ.(Rom 1:16)” Why else is the church silent? There is no other reason. We are too scared to stand up for Christ; whether it is witnessing, saying a prayer, or our religious freedom. The Bride of Christ is ashamed to say or do anything because it is ashamed of the Bridegroom.

This is unbelievably sad. How can we turn our backs on Jesus? He’s done so much; no He’s done EVERYTHING for us! He humiliated Himself by coming into our pathetic world, He died an agonizing death, and He rose so that we might do the same. He’s given us the power to be co-heirs with Him, because of Him we, who in past times were on our way to Hell, now have a living hope. All because of Jesus Christ!!!!!

And what do we do to repay our Savior? We turn our backs on Him. You might not think so, but when you do not stand up for God’s Word, other believers, or Biblical principles that is exactly what you are doing.

So How do we fix this? By being vocal, proud, and not backing down. This is how a movement is furthered. We need to be vocal as to let people know where we stand, and the issues that we oppose. We need to be proud as to say and do these things with pride. If you stand for something, you need to be proud of that something. And in this case we need to be proud of our Savior and our precious Bible. Lastly, we must not back down; not now, not ever. We must keep our ground on the issues we oppose and the ones we support.

We must be like the Israelites in the book of Judges. We cannot allow ourselves to become victim to synchronization. We must stand for the beliefs which make us different. Not allowing ourselves to compromise to those false gods and pagans. The Israelites failed many times and so have we believers, but it is not too late.

We can make a difference in our nation. If only we would not be ashamed of the Gospel. This is the key to bringing revival. Never lose hope, because the Gospel is the most powerful thing there is. It can change lives, and it can certainly change a nation. That’s my opinion. Take it or leave it. - Dean

Don't Worship the teacher, Worship the Master Teacher

2009-05-27T18:31:00.005-04:00

My first video blog!!!

What in the (Roman Catholic) World is Going On Here?

2009-05-19T22:21:00.007-04:00

Sunday is a day when Catholics all over the planet are observing Mass, going through their rituals in an attempt to please God. But on this past Sunday, a certain political leader was not found at mass, but instead at a Roman Catholic school a school named Notre Dame.

When many people hear Notre Dame they think of football, Rudy, or maybe even Luke Harangody. But the school's name is French, it means "our lady." This is a Roman Catholic term for the "Blessed Virgin Mother" - Mary. Notre Dame has been around since 1842 when it was all-men school for the clergy. It has always been close to the hearts of the Roman Catholics.

So Why am I talking about Notre Dame's history? Because that certain political leader's name is Barack Hussein Obama, and Notre Dame just gave him an honorary degree.Let's pause to talk about President Obama. He is one of the most pro-choice politicians in all of America. Some say that he is dangerously close to being a proponent for infanticide. Other than this being clearly Biblically wrong, what's the point? What's the big deal? ABORTION FLIES IN THE FACE OF ROMAN CATHOLIC DOGMA AND DOCTRINE!!!

So why is a Roman Catholic school giving a pro-choice politician an honorary degree? I HAVE NO CLUE! BUT IT SCARES ME! It looks very strange on the first look, then stranger and stranger as you look closer. The Roman Catholic church has always held fairly strong to their beliefs (although their beliefs are very off). So why willingly give into "false doctrine"? Another question is why has the Pope not stopped this?

Many devout Roman Catholics have complained, protested, and grumbled about this. A group of bishops signed a petition, but to no avail. Why didn't the Pope stand up for his faith? I have given it much though, and I believe that it can be summed up in one word - ecumenicalism. I see this whole predicament as another opportunity for the world to promote ecumenicalism.

The Bible is clear that in the end times the world will be that of one. One government, one religion (the harlot church), and one means of trade (money) - this is why Obama was allowed to speak. And Obama knew it! Why do I say this? I say this based on what he said in his speech, check this out.

Obama called for "open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words" when it comes to abortion.

"The question, then, is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort?"

"Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature. "

"Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone. Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and greater understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history."

All these statements have their root in ecumenicalism. And ecumenicalism is rooted in the belief that truth is relative. Which Obama tried to give an example of relative truth:

"The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in an admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved." (Applause.)

President Obama thinks that the answer for these life problems can be discovered if we will just compromise our religious and philosophical differences. But let me tell you bub, I will not "bridge the cultural divide", because yo are not asking us to simply get along, you are asking us to admit defeat as to who is right on both sides and get over it. But to admit defeat is to say that the Bible contains relative truth as well.

Well guess what truth is not relative! Ecumenicalism is wrong! The Bible is truth, and Christ is the only way. (Jn 14:6) President Obama, the Roman Catholic church, and the world might be against the truth but I have read the end of the book and let me just tell you friend the Truth wins over both ecumenicalism and the theory of relative truth. Sorry Mr. President, if it makes you feel better you still have that honorary degree. That's my opinion. Take it or leave it. - Dean

The Love of God

2009-04-30T13:33:00.001-04:00

It's been awhile, but I have too many classes, sorry. Anyways, lately I've been thinking about love. No, not the sappy kind, the true kind. The love of God. You see, I am a classic Baptist who thinks nay knows that the purpose of creation was for God to bring glory to Himself, but in that I believe that God wanted to bring glory to Himself through showing His infinite love to His Creation.

Think about it, God has done so much for us lowly men. Why? Because He loves us! How amazing!!! The Living God who created everything loves me, He loves you. Take some time to praise God today for His love for you. I know this is so simple to the Christian, but I'm a fan of the simple truths of the Bible; NEVER FORGET GOD'S LOVE!!!

As I was thinking about this astounding truth, I was going through John 3 in my Greek studies. And it left me in utter amazement of my Savior. I understood what defines true love. Love sacrificially gives, humbles itself, and it is active its alive.

Love Sacrificially Gives:

This can be seen clearly in this passage. Look at verse 16, God loved the world so what did He do? He gave us His precious and only Son. Verse 35, God loves His Son so what did He do? He gave Him all things under His control? A few chapters later Jesus shows how He loves us by giving His life on a rugged cross for our salvation from the penalty of sin.

You think these gifts were easy to give? Did it cost something to the giver. Absolutely it did/does!!! God gave the only Son He has!! Jesus gave His life!!! Not even to mention He became a servant for our sakes, the God of the universe (Read the Kanosis passage in Philippians 2). God gave everything to Christ's hand, I think that's a lot! In this same way we should give sacrificially to our Savior, why? Because we love Him!!! Whether its financially or actually doing something for God, we should be giving to Jesus. For those fo you who are truly giving, is it for the right motives? Is it because you love God? I know I had to reconsider my motives.

Love Humbles Itself:

In verse 30 John tells His disciples that He must decrease that Jesus would increase. John knew who Jesus was and He loved Him. This is why He willingly humbles himself. When true love is faced with the one whom it loves it will be humbled. Are you humble? Do you think highly of yourself and not as Highly as you should about Christ? I know I havn't been.

Love is Active/Alive:

All throughout this passage we can see that love isn't just a feeling, it's a conscious decision we make all the time. Through love we believe in the Son, and have eternal life. Through love God gives us His Spirit. Through love we bring glory to God. Through true love God is glorified.

Do we as Christians have this type of love for God? Or are we too concerned with our material wealth, friends, the stockmarket, our schooling, our comfortable pew? I know too many churches that have lost their first love because they did not give, humble themselves, or actively love their Savior. Don't forget Him in the business of life, ministry, and finances!!! Love Him!!! Why? HE LOVES YOU!!!!! That's my opinion. Take it or leave it. -Dean

Homosexuality: Is it in the Genes?

2009-04-11T18:05:00.003-04:00

In the world today people are trying to figure out why they do the things they do. In this search for answers people have often looked to biological reasons. Lately, I have been having numerous conversations with others about whether homosexuality is genetic or not. This thought is mostly launched from psychology. People say that because of their genetic and biological imbalances they sin. Could this be true? Could homosexuality be genetic? Could sin be genetic?

According to the world's philosophy why not? They would say that every effect would have a cause(The Christian would agree with the law of causality), and that cause could be a genetic defect. If this were true then homosexuality would be something that one would not be able to stop, it would be in their biological make-up to do this.

If homosexuality was truly genetic then the homosexual would have something to blame for his/her sin other than themselves. They would have an excuse for sin. Just think about this for a moment. Let's say that the homosexual goes before God on Judgement Day, God asks "Why did you do this?" To which the man would be able to say, "Well God, it was a genetic default, so It wasn't my fault, it was because of the one who made me...actually it's your fault."

There's absolutely no way that this thought could be supported by the Scriptures. It violate it in so many ways. Let's just start in the most commonly used passage regarding homosexuality and genetics - Romans 1:22-27

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;"

Notice how this passage begins with talking about false religion and where it stems from - false wisdom. Verse 22 says that they professed to be wise, then the following verse talks about what resulted from their false wisdom - false religion.

It says that in their "wisdom" they changed the truth of God into lies. They denied what God said was true, thinking they were smarter they changed or they made different the truth into lies. Also, they did not give glory to the Creator but rather they worshiped the creature.

The next verse started out by letting the reader know that this is a cause and effect. It says "for this reason" coming from the Greek word διά, which means exactly that, for this cause or reason. After this introduction to this thought, Paul continues to tell the one of the results of man's idolatry against God - homosexuality. He says that that because of man's wickedness they exchanged what was natural and willfully committed homosexuality.

But God did not let this happen without any punishment. Paul says in verse 27 that "receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet" this means they got the punishment they deserved for their heinous sin. I believe this (along with polygamy)is where we got STDs like the epidemic of AIDS.

There are numerous passages that tell us that homosexuality is an abomination against God, just look at Leviticus 18. Just think or a moment again that this thought of homosexuality being genetic. If one were to be homosexual(by their genetics) and got saved, they would still have to commit homosexuality (unless God changed their DNA after conversion, I doubt it!)There is no way that God would make a being who could do nothing to stop their sin, even with being born again. Homosexuality is not genetic, just sin. That's my opinion. Take it or Leave it. - Dean

Who is the rock of the church?

2009-03-27T16:13:00.002-04:00

“And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” - Matthew 16:18 (NKJV)

People have all kinds of ideas and various doctrines that they base off of this passage alone. The Catholics say that this passage obviously shows Peter’s role as the first “pope” of the church. They have “documents” of Peter himself using this passage and claiming himself as the foundation of the church. Peter is supposedly quoted as saying, “For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church. (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221])This “quote” has been disproven through time.

Despite their false quotes and stories, could the Catholics actually be right when they say that Peter is the “rock” that Jesus is referring to in this passage? When just reading over it, it might appear to be true, but one must look very closely to discern the truth. There are three basic questions when coming to the passage. Is the “rock” Peter or Jesus? What does the phrase “the gates of Hades will not prevail against” the church mean? And what does this verse mean to the believer?

The first question is in all likelihood the hardest of the three questions to answer. As already mentioned many people have different opinions, various ideologies, and numerous doctrines pouring out from this part of the verse alone. Those who hold to the idea that Peter is the rock that Jesus was talking about think that this is true due to the evidence of Peter’s preaching at Pentecost. Most theologians agree that this is where the church truly was established and started. And all these people saved at Pentecost, were due to the preaching of Peter. It would be logical to assume that this verse was talking about Peter being the rock then.

Other proof given by others for this view is that of the same Greek word used for the name Peter (Petroj) and rock (Petra), since the same Greek word is used people assume that it is obvious that Peter is the rock, although different genders are used in the Scriptures. Even deeper than the Greek is the language that Christ spoke in – Aramaic. This language would have no distinction between the gender of the word (kepha).

There are also numerous passages talking about the apostles being the foundation of the church. Paul referring to the church says in Ephesians 2:20 “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone.” (ESV) John when describing New Jerusalem said, “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” (ESV) The Bible clearly says that the apostles are the firm foundation of the church.

One would need to look at both sides of the spectrum though to come to a definite conclusion on this matter. The view of Jesus being the rock is held by many conservative Baptists. They would argue strongly against all “proofs” of Peter being the rock of the church. They would say that this idea contradicts Scripture. John MacArthur puts it this way in his study Bible, “Since the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that Christ is both the foundation (Acts 4:11, 12; I Corinthians 3:11) and the head (Ephesians 5:23) of the church, it is a mistake to think that here He is giving either of those roles to Peter. There is a sense that the apostles played a foundational role in the building of the church (Ephesians 2:20), but the role of primacy is reserved for Christ alone, not assigned to Peter.”

This argument is very concise to the point of the Peter as the rock view being against other Scriptures, and it is impossible for it to be correct if it violates what other passages in God’s Word says. Think about it practically if Peter is the rock, upon which Christ would build His church, how can Jesus Christ be the chief-cornerstone? Because that is precisely what Jesus is saying! He is saying that whoever is the rock is the cornerstone. Jesus was a carpenter he understood how things were made. Jesus knew that one must always start with a cornerstone or a foundation-point when building.

According to the verse MacArthur brings up Christ is the chief-cornerstone. This clearly shows that it could not be Peter who would be the rock or stone Jesus would build his church on, it just does not match up with Scripture. Right there the argument is over, but there is more proof on the side of Christ being the rock. Wayne Jackson listed three contextual considerations that are proofs of this view in his paper “Was Peter the Rock?”

He says, “(1) Petroj and petra reflect different genders—the former is masculine, the latter is feminine; thus a distinction is drawn.(2) Petroj generally is a smaller stone, a fragment; petra is a more massive, bedrock-like substructure.(3) Christ distinguished between petros and petra by the use of pronouns of different person. Petroj has a second person pronoun as a companion, while Petra is used with a third person pronoun.”

Someone could say that this variance in genders does not matter due to the fact that Jesus spoke in Aramaic (which had no gender derivation for the word for rock [kepha]). Jackson goes on to say in his paper, “Additionally, the fact is, Matthew’s Gospel record was written in Greek; and the Greek clearly reflects a distinction between the masculine Petroj, and the feminine Petra so the argument stands.”

The only argument left standing is that of Peter’s preaching at Pentecost. This is where the church started, and Peter preached, so one could say he started it. But, Acts 2 is clear that Peter does not speak until he is filled with the Holy Spirit. The passage that Peter quotes from Joel 2:28-32 clearly says that the people who would be filled with “My Spirit” would do their marvelous deeds under the unction of the Holy Spirit. One could be sure that if Peter was to be around today and someone asked him how it felt when he started the church, he would be appalled and say it wasn’t him, it was God.

William Mounce, a well-respected Greek linguist, has been quoted saying that if it was Peter who was the rock Jesus was referring to, he simply would say “And upon you I will build my church.”This is clearly a magnificent pun, a play on words. This verse could be said, “You are a small rock, but on this rock (points to Himself) I will build my church. How clever of Jesus to use the nick-name He gave to Peter to show such a distinction between Peter and Himself, He is the rock, the chief-cornerstone, of the church.

So what does the rest of the verse means what are the “gates of Hades” and why will they “not prevail against” the church? Some people think this verse is referring to a historical place called Gehenna. This is the place that the Bible uses over and over again as visual aid of what Hell is like. Gehenna was the “dump yard” of Israel it was a place where trash, dead bodies, and other refuge was burnt by continual fire all the time.

Others hold to the position that the gates of Hades refer to the place known for Ba’al worship throughout the Old Testament. Jim Garrish says, “The whole area around Caesarea Philippi, with its natural beauty and picturesque setting, had long been a center for false religion. Just a very few kilometers from Caesarea, and also situated on the slopes of Hermon, is the ancient city of Dan. This city was also blessed by cooling springs of water bubbling up to make yet another source of the Jordan River.

Unfortunately, during the days of Jeroboam the Son of Nebat, Dan was made into a cultic shrine where one of the two golden calves was set up. Of course, it was but a short step from the worship of a bull to the worship of Ba’al. Ultimately the beautiful site of Dan helped bring about the fall of Israel, or the northern ten tribes. These tribes have now been in dispersion for 2700 years because of their idolatry. So we can see that Jesus brought his disciples to the very gates of false religion, to the gates of Hades.”

These are both good historical observations but one must look at the verse itself to understand the meaning. What does the Greek phrase for “the gates of Hades” mean? The word for gates comes from the plural word pulai, simply meaning gates. But Albert Barnes sheds some light in his commentary saying, “Ancient cities were surrounded by walls. In the gates by which they were entered were the principal places for holding courts, transacting business, and deliberating on public matters. The word “gates,” therefore, is used for counsels, designs, machinations, evil purposes.”

The word for Hades is not the word for Gehenna, nor is it the word for the place of Ba’al worship. Hades is the Greek word adou which is the genitive form of adhj meaning the place of departed souls. So upon first glance it would mean the gates of hell, probably meaning that it would never perish despite what trials Satan and the world would throw its way. The body of Christ would last through the ages.

So what does this verse mean to the believer? Does it mean something to debate about? Or perhaps something to hold fast to, and claim as a promise of God? This verse tells the believer that Jesus Christ is the firm rock, chief-cornerstone, and foundation of the church and because the church has so firm a foundation it cannot fall. If the church is the sustainer of the church, how could it?

The church can hold on to this verse as a promise from Jesus Christ Himself. The church will not fall, it will prevail. This does not take away from our various responsibilities, such as the Great Commission. But it gives the church hope that whatever may happen whether the economy falls completely, Christianity has to go underground, or Baptists decrease to a marginal few, the church will survive. That's my opinion. Take it or leave it. - Dean

Mark Driscoll: Friend or Foe?

2009-03-21T17:58:00.005-04:00

I grew up in the Seattle area, and have grown up there I've heard a lot from pastors like Casey Treat, Judah Smith, and Mark Driscoll. The later of these has sparked an interest. Lately, I have been doing a lot of study on Mark Driscoll.

Driscoll will admit to being part of the emerging church movement, actually he embraces it. According to Driscoll there are four "lanes" or "teams" in the emerging church movement. Driscoll says that Mars Hill Church and himself are part of the "Emeriging Reformers" lane.

This view is said by him to be similar to old reformed theology with "minor" exceptions. Exceptions such as worship being "pretty free" and all gifts are viewed as being for today (healing, tongues, etc.). What Mark Driscoll means here is that they believe in the same doctrine as conservative Evangelical Christians except their worship is more liberal (drums, electric guitar, more rock, etc.) and that they believe that all Christians are able to access every spiritual gift mentioned int he New Testament.

So theologically Driscoll would be similar to that of the Baptist denomination. So what's wrong with him? He has some great stuff (especially about the crucifixion of Christ), but he also has some real messed up ideologies. He holds that a Christian should cuss when conversation demands for emphasis.

He also thinks that drinking alcohol is good. He says that it is a sin to abstain from alcohol, and even to drnk light beer. He says, "I personally long to return to the glory days of Christian pubs, where God’s men gather to drink beer and talk theology." While this is not a "critical" issue, it does alarm me to think he is inserting his own opinion so much into the Scriptures.

There are many other minor issues that conservatives have with Mark Driscoll, but let's take a look at some facts. He is a pastor of a CHRIST-CENTERED church the size of 10,000 (a weekend). He preaches with authority, but not the authority of the usual charismatic but with the authority of the Bible. Driscoll says, "The problem with my pastoral job is that I don't really know what I'm doing. So I read every book I can find and cling to the Bible like a kid who can't swim but somehow found a life preserver in the middle of the ocean." He clings to the Gospel.

Although Mark Driscoll and I have some fairly large disagreements, I am proud to call him a brother in Christ. And as for his church, He is preaching the Gospel, others are getting saved, disciples are being grown, and God is being glorified. That's my opinion. Take it or leave it. - Dean

Christ and the Economy

2009-03-15T13:59:00.002-04:00

"This economy stinks right now." "We've really gone down the drain." "We're almost scraping the bottom of the barrel." "There doesn't seem to be any hope, I'm scared." These are all statement that I've heard lately about the state of our economy. These are all statements from believers mind you.

All this talking, worrying, and depression about the stock market has reminded me of a particular passage. In Luke 12:16-21 Jesus told a parable about a rich man who was gaining money very fast. He was consumed with his work so much so that he ws thinking about the next years load of crops and decided that he needed to tear down his barns and build larger ones in order to keep up with his success.

God then told the rich man, "You fool! This very night your soul is required of you; and now who will own what you have prepared?" The rich man was so enthrawlled with future success, he did not prepare for his family (he did not make a will). His family then squabbled over his fortune. The rich man was so consumed with the future, that he was not aware of the present.

I think this principle could be applied to Christians today. I think that all this attention over the stock market, has taken the church by storm. We are focusing on our futures and how we are going to get out of this financial jam. We as believers are not focusing on the present we are not focusing on sinners around us who are on their way to hell. We have the Truth, we can help others in these hard times. If only we would take our eyes off our own future financial success, and set them on those who are really struggling - those without Christ.

Besides, I know that things are tough right now, but why are we so consumed with it? We are the bride of Christ. Ephesians 2:12, and Philippians 3:20 tell us that our citizenship is not on this planet with our material money, but in Heaven with our Lord and Savior. I understand that we live in this world, but right after the parable about the rich man in Luke 12, Jesus told us "But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you. "

We are to be winning souls for Christ! Not focusing on our own petty financial struggles. We serve a God that owns the cattle on a thousand hills, He will certainly help us as long as we focus on Him and the reason we are still in this world - spreading the Gospel.

Colossians 3:1-3, "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God."

What are you focusing on? Finances or the reason why we live - Christ? Let me just suggest, It should be Christ. That's my opinion. Take it or leave it. - Dean

Is The King James Bible the Only Bible?

2009-03-03T20:36:00.002-05:00

The Translation issue has been around for years. It’s not uncommon for people to be confused about it. When trying to understand an issue one must look at both sides of the argument. There are some who believe that the King James Version is the only translation of the Bible that can be trusted. The majority of this nation believe that one cannot completely be confident in the exact wording of the Bibles we have today. This view is defined as textual criticism.

We will begin our study with the King James Only position. In recent years this belief has begun to really grow. In the book put out by Central Theological Seminary, The Bible Version Debate, Larry D. Pettegrew gives a good description of this position. He says, “ The King James Only teaching is based on the hypothesis that the King James Version of the Bible is the only inspired and inerrant English Bible.” He later goes on to say that some radicals who hold to this position also believe that other versions are actually works from Satan and should be done away with.
Where did this version come from, how can we say that the King James Version is the Word of God?

The King James Version was completed in 1611 and again in 1769. This version was mainly derived from two separate sources. The New Testament is largely compiled from the Stephanus text, which is traced back to the Textus Receptus, and the Old Testament is taken from the Masoretic Hebrew text. A Roman Catholic humanist named Erasmus in 1516 translated the Textus Receptus. Erasmus is quoted as saying that his text was “thrown together rather than edited.” His text had many errors including twenty in just the last six verses of Revelation.
This text was compiled from Byzantine text-type. The main strength of this text-type is found in its numbers. Over eighty percent of Greek manuscripts belong to this text-type, although no Byzantine manuscripts have been found before the 4th century leading one to believe it did not exist before that time. This brings a big problem to the King James Only position.

When it comes down to it, the King James Only position depends on one key idea; verbal inspiration. Verbal inspiration means that God inspired the very words and forms of expression found in the King James Version. But this is not a true Biblical definition of inspiration. Pettegrew says this of inspiration, “ The phrase, “given by inspiration of God,” comes from one word in the Greek, theopneustos. This word literally means “God-breathed” – thus, “All Scripture is God-breathed”…Thus, the original documents, as they were written down by the prophets and apostles, were God-breathed.”

The original autographs were inspired by God; they were inerrant, they were written by “holy men of God” as they were “moved” or inspired by the Holy Spirit (II Pt 2:21). The King James Version was a work of mere men without the Holy Spirit, which means that there is no possible way for it to be perfect. God did not dictate its translation; therefore it could not be perfect. The King James Version has flaws.

Now let’s take a look at the opposing view of the King James Only position. The opposition to this is Textual criticism. Essentially, the term textual criticism means comparing and contrasting various manuscripts in order to distinguish the original meaning. Why is it important to use this? Pettegrew says, “It is necessary to apply textual criticism to the text of the New Testament for two reasons. First, none of the original copies of Scripture is extant; and second, no two of the extant manuscripts are exactly alike. In fact, the most similar Manuscripts disagree six to ten times per chapter.” There are various ways that this is done.

Textual critics realize that man has made flaws in writing down the Scriptures throughout the ages. There has not always been printing presses. Originally men had to copy the Scriptures by hand. Although they were very careful in their work, they were human and what do humans do best? They made mistakes. Not many, but when you have a document copied with two mistakes, and the next copy has another two mistakes, etc. You will have quite a few mistakes.

Textual critics try to find the earliest manuscripts therefore cutting off the extra mistakes. They believe the earlier the manuscript the better the translation. This is key, instead of sticking to the tradition of the Textus Receptus they look to earlier copies for their translations. In their opinion they are finding a better translation.

Textual critics refer not to the Textus Receptus, as already stated, but to the Ecclectic Text. The Ecclectic Text is based on and uses all the manuscripts and text-types, and all important textual variants are displayed in the textual apparatus. It is also based on textual critics central idea that the age and quality of manuscripts is more important than the number of manuscripts.

I have personally been on both sides of this argument. Two years ago I was planning on attending Golden State Baptist College in California, this school was King James Only. So I briefly looked at their argument and decided I agreed. I then looked at other parts of this school, and other churches which supported it. People often think that this debate only extends to which Bible you use. I have personally experienced it and I can honestly say this is not true.

It affects your whole ministry, when you believe that you are the only one who is right. You think you’re right in other things. You become arrogant, in both your words and actions. You lose touch with this world, thinking that you are better than the average sinner. You also take that mindset to the Scriptures.

When giving a lecture at Pensacola Dr. Dell Johnson, a supporter of the King James Only position, was speaking on II Timothy 3:16. He said that it read “All these words are inspired by God” when in actuality it reads “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.” He read into the passage his preconceived notion that it supported verbal inspiration, when it did not. The Greek word there is grafhe,, which means scripture, the idea of being a whole writing, not individual words. Dr. Johnson did not interpret it that way. This can easily happen when hold to this position it affects your exegesis.

Personally, I think that the King James Only position is a weak one. I believe that the original autographs were inspired not the Bibles we have today. But, I am confident we have God’s Word today, maybe not the same wording, but still the same authority.

A Brief Thought on the Time Taken for God to Create

2009-02-24T09:30:00.002-05:00

Many scientists have studied creation. It’s only rational for a person to think, “Where have I come from?” Some have come to the right conclusion; that is that we are created beings by an intelligent designer. This designer is not just intelligent, He is the omniscient God. He is the God of Israel. He is Yahweh.

After one has come to this conclusion that God created everything, the question must be asked, “How long did it take?” The Bible provides the answer to this question in the book of Genesis. There are several views on this passage. The most prominent of these views are the gap theory, and the literal day theory.

The gap theory: In between Genesis 1 verses 1 and 2 is a gap. How long is this gap? Well, no one really knows. Some say that there were a few centuries, some say millions of years. This view essentially says that in between verses 1 and 2 God had a sort of “test-run” on creation where men (with Satan’s help) rebelled against God, to the point where God had to destroy the entire planet. The Biblical support for this view is very limited.

They say that in verse 2 when the reader sees that the Holy Spirit “moved across the waters” this phrase means that the Spirit protectively hovered over the waters. They say that this was done so that the Holy Spirit could protect earth from Satan. They also argue that verse 2 is all about judgment saying that “darkness” refers to evil judgment. But both of these arguments can be proven wrong fairly easily. Hovering can be meant to be protective, but it can also be a loving action by a loving Creator. And darkness is said to be good be God(vs 3, 31), so there’s no way that it can mean judgment. There was no gap, and no men before the first man – Adam. This view does not agree with the entirety of Scripture. This view is false.

The literal day theory: The Bible says over and over again in Genesis 1 that on this “day” this was created. The Bible says that all of creation took place in one week - 6 days of creation, and 1 day of rest. People like to take the word “day” and say that this word could mean any type of time. Henry Morris in his book Science and the Bible says, “Although the Hebrew word for “day” (yom) can occasionally mean a time of indefinite length if the context requires, such a usage is rare, and the word almost always does mean a literal day (i.e., either a twenty-four-hour period or the daylight portion of that period). He then goes on to say, “The use of a numeral with day (“first day,” and so on) or the boundary terms (“evening and morning”) are usages that elsewhere in the Pentateuch invariably require the literal meaning of “day.” (pg. 38)

This view would agree with the rest of the canon of the Bible. Exodus 20:11 says, “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” These are literal days. This is the basis of our time system, here (in Creation) we have the first week. This is how we know which is the seventh day; which day we should separate as the Sabbath day. The time God took to create the universe is a type of illustration for us to surround our time frame around. How amazing is God? He created everything in only six literal days. What a miracle, what a Creator!! There is none like Him (Psalm 86:8)! That's (not just) my opinion. Take it or leave it. - Dean

Sunday's Comin...

2009-02-21T20:44:00.008-05:00

How amazing is the death of Christ!!! I think sometimes that we Christians forget about what Christ did for us.; He died for us. The Soveriegn Lord of all creation put on this pathetic form according to Philippians 2 and bore the pain - the pain and humiliation of the cross. For centuries the Jewish community had been awaiting the coming of their True King, their Messiah. And then when they least expected it Christ came.

He came bearing witness of Himself with miracles. But did they listen to the much prophesied of Messiah? No, for the most part, they scorned Him. They rediculed Him. They decided to crucify Him. After the penalty was announced (much to the happiness of the crowd of Jews gathered at Pilate's palace), a garrison (a garrison was normally nearly 600 soldiers) of Roman soldiers took Him aside away from the public and mocked Him.

They stripped Him of His cloathes, and put a scarlet robe on Him. They took some thorns, twisted it into somewhat of a circle, and smushed it into place on His head claiming it to be His "crown." Then they nailed Him to a cross, but what they didn't know was that Sunday was coming...

If only we could truely grasp this amazing concept of God dying. I think that it would impact us in such a way that we would have no other choice than to serve Him with all of our hearts. That's my opinion. Take it or leave it. - Dean

"Stimulus" Package

2009-02-15T16:10:00.003-05:00

Sometime this upcoming week, President Obama is set to sign the Stimulus Package Bill. It is set at 787 billion dollars, WOW! Here’s a basic breakdown of the numbers:

• $550 billion in new spending, described as thoughtful and carefully targeted priority investments with unprecedented accountability measures built in.

• $275 billion in tax relief ($1,000 tax cut for families, $500 tax cut for individuals through SS payroll deductions) • $ 90 billion for infrastructure

• $ 87 billion Medicaid aid to states • $ 79 billion school districts/public colleges to prevent cutbacks • $ 54 billion to encourage energy production from renewable sources

• $ 41 billion for additional school funding ($14 billion for school modernizations and repairs, $13 billion for Title I, $13 billion for IDEA special education funding, $1 billion for education technology)

• $ 24 billion for "health information technology to prevent medical mistakes, provide better care to patients and introduce cost-saving efficiencies" and "to provide for preventative care and to evaluate the most effective healthcare treatments."

• $ 15 billion for science/technology ($10 billion for science facilities, research, and instrumentation; $6 billion to expand broadband to rural areas)

• $ 15 billion to increase Pell grants by $500

• $ 5 billion for the ambiguous "higher education modernization."

So 787 billion dollars is quite a chunk of money right? But how about the average American home? How much money is the average American going to see from this enormous amount? Well this is how that breaks down:

$500 per worker, $1,000 per couple tax cut for two years, costing about $140 billion.
Greater access to the $1,000-per-child tax credit for the working poor.
Expansion of the earned-income tax credit to include families with three children a $2,500 college tuition tax credit.
Repeal of a requirement that a $7,500 first-time homebuyer tax credit be paid back over time.

To me this bill seems like a lot of money, with very little responsibility. How do we know exactly what this money is being used for? With such general titles for these “severe needs.” I don’t buy it! Neither did any Republicans. This is a terrible package, a terrible bill, with even worse ramifications. That’s my opinion. Take it or leave it. - Dean

A Biblical Example of Evangelism: Paul

2009-01-31T18:57:00.003-05:00

Matthew 28:19-20 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

How many times have you heard this verse along with some “new” type of evangelism? Ones like “coffee” evangelism. There’s always some new fad out with how to reach the unsaved for Christ. With so many new methods coming out everyday, may I just suggest a simple one? How about the Biblical approach?

I’m not saying that these fads are wrong; I just don’t understand why the traditional evangelism is not sufficient. I think we focus on these new methods too much. I’m a Baptist, which essentially means that I go by Biblical examples; and the most predominant example of Biblical evangelism other than Christ is the apostle Paul. So let’s take a look at what Paul’s evangelism looked like, and then apply that to today.

One of the best passages when trying to understand Paul’s methods of evangelism is Acts 17:16-32. Here we find Paul in the city of the philosophers, intellectuals, and critics – the city of Athens. This is where Paul gives possibly his most well known sermon of all time; he gives the sermon of “The Unknown God.”

But before we look at the means of the message, let’s look at the motive. We can find the reasoning for why Paul evangelizes in verse 16. It says that when Paul saw their idol worship that his spirit was provoked or stirred with him. This word provoke comes from the Greek word παροξύνω which means to sharpen alongside with or to exasperate. John Gill put it this way in his commentary, “not only his soul was troubled and his heart was grieved, but he was exasperated and provoked to the last degree: he was in a paroxysm; his heart was hot within him; he had a burning fire in his bones, and was weary with forbearing, and could not stay; his zeal wanted vent, and he gave it: “

Paul was so concerned about the state of their “lostness” that he was essentially heartbroken over it. He was so concerned he was moved to action, he could not be silenced. Could this be said of us today? Are we so concerned about people’s relationship with God that we can do no other than to tell them the Truth? Is that our motive for evangelism today? Or are we just making sure we are fulfilling commands, are we just making our quota?

I think if we honestly had this innate desire to reach souls for Christ there would be revival first in our own lives, our relationships, our churches, our communities, our nation. If our heart was really exasperated about the souls of others around us, we would be able to say with Paul in Romans 1:16 I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation. What a statement we find here, such a love for others. WOW!!! If we have this desire and this love we will most assuredly be able to apply the rest of this passage.

So how did he respond to this innate desire? Vs. 17 says that “Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews.” I.e. So he reasoned with the Jews in the synagogue. Because of his desire to win the lost for Christ, he went into the synagogue and in the marketplace declaring the Gospel of Christ to anyone who happened to be there.

If you know anything about Athens, it is that the fathers of modern philosophy were largely based from this city. The Athenians loved anything new. They wanted the latest philosophy so that they could determine if it was valid or not. It says in vs. 18 that the Epicureans and Stoics conversed with Paul. They called him a “babbler” this term comes from the Greek word σπερμολόγος which means that a picker-up of seeds. This term basically means a gatherer of scraps, and in this case referring to knowledge. Some might say that this is a “bad” name but I think Paul would be happy to be called a gatherer of knowledge. The verse goes on to say that they thought he was a preacher of foreign gods because he preached Christ’s resurrection. This was nonsense to them, because despite their love or thinking and philosophy, they had no concept of this.

After this they led him to where all the real philosophers were located. This is where Paul gives his most well-known and most preached on sermon of all time. They led Paul to Areopagus. There they ask him a simple question, “Can we know what this new form of doctrine that you preach is?” Isn’t this the usual case? When confronted with the Truth people will ask questions, they will not understand completely at first. Which is good for us, because we get another chance to retell the Gospel.

After they ask this question Luke gives an authoritative comment. He says in verse 21“Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new.” This shows human nature, despite all the philosophy and thoughts of grandeur that they already possessed they craved more. They continually wanted “a newer thing.” Could this possibly be the “God-shaped hole?” I would say yes.

After Luke’s brief comment, Paul begins his speech or sermon. He begins with a compliment; saying that he perceived them to be “very religious” this would be very honoring for an Athenian. This shows how one truly can have a loving debate and discussion about the Gospel. Earlier in the text Paul preached they complimented him and then asked questions, then Paul compliments them and truly answers this question. This is a great example of how evangelism can work.

Alright let’s pause for a moment to consider some historical background for Athens. In that day there were thousands of idols in Athens, possibly 35,000 statues within the city. They had so many gods, but just in case they missed one they had an alter to the “Unknown God.” In the days of Paul, it was illegal in Athens to introduce a new God. They desired new philosophies but not a new god, they had enough of those.

Paul knew this. He understood where he was, the culture, laws, and customs of Athens. He took the time to understand and to learn their culture. He knew it was illegal for him to introduce a new god to the Athenians, but he knew he could introduce them to a God they had no understanding of – The Unknown God. He also tells them that they worshipped him in vain, but he was now introducing Him to them. This is an excellent transition; he takes something they understand and turns it into something they need to know. And talk about an attention step! They must have been so eager and excited to understand something that until this point, no Athenian had ever known.

Paul starts his sermon or discussion with the beginning. Telling the Athenians that this Unknown God was the God who created everything, also saying that he is self-existent and sovereign and needs nothing from men. Also telling them in vs. 26 how God rules over civilization saying, “And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place.” This flies in direct contrast to what these Athenians believed. Essentially the Stoics believed in fate, and the Epicureans in chance. A fully Sovereign God would totally demolish those philosophies.

Paul then talks about how the Athenians have tried so hard to reach out and find God, but he was never that far from them. Trying to reach out to God through religion and philosophy is impossible; this is what Paul is telling the Athenians. This would most likely confuse them, so once again Paul refers to something that they do understand. He refers to some of their own poets’ writings in vs. 28. This would bring back the attention of the Athenians.

Paul then says in vs. 29, “ Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.” Paul is telling them, hey this isn’t some made up statue this is a Supreme Being who is personal. This would be very hard for them to understand. A God who wanted a relationship with mere men?? And then Paul tells them how this God demanded repentance, and how He will judge the world by the Man whom he appointed. And that this was made known through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

When they heard about the resurrection, the Bible tells us that some mocked and some said that they wanted to hear of this again (after some time of pondering I assume). After this Paul leaves. Not in an angry way, not in a self-righteous “I’m right you’re wrong” type of way, but he just goes out from their midst. And some went with him, some got saved! One of them was a judge of Areopagus, Dionysius. What a conversion, from a judge of a pagan council of prominent philosophers to a man saved by God’s grace!

This text, I believe can show us how evangelism can and should be worked. Notice how Paul compliments the Athenians. He answers questions with humility. He makes the great comparison between the Unknown God and Yahweh. He refers to things they understand when it appears that they had been lost in his speaking twice. Essentially, the reason why Paul’s evangelism was so effective was that he took the time to understand the Athenian culture, and then contrasted it with the Truth.

We don’t need these new fads for evangelism. What we need is to know about our culture, and be able to contrast it with the Truth of God’s infallible Word. Remembering Paul’s heartful concern for the unsaved, and applying the Biblical approach of evangelism we can be like the apostle Paul when it is said of him in Acts 17:6 that he “turned the world upside down” for Christ. That’s my opinion. Take it or leave it. - Dean

A little testimony

2009-01-24T20:55:00.003-05:00

I just wanted to take a little break from opinionated topics. And take a little time to praise God for something He's done in my life recently. This semester has been really hard, I transferred to a new college in the South and I've been struggling with it. I've been pretty depressed about it.

Last week, just when I was not having a good attitude about my circumstances, there was a very good sermon. An evangelist came and spoke about Paul and the different institutions he was known in, challenging the student body as to whether they were known for integrity as well.

While, I sat there I kept on thinking to myself. "Man, I've heard this sermon before, I know it!" For the longest time though I couldn't figure it out. Then the man prayed, and he gave his name - Bro. Kistler, and it hit me.

Ten years ago this May, I visited the Northwest A.C.E. convention in Washington. One of the nights Bro. Kistler was speaking at one of rallies. He gave that same sermon, concluding with Romans 10:14, How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?`` Which is now my life verse.

At the end of his prayer, he asked those who wanted to commit their lives to full-time ministry to come forward. I went down at the age of nine, walked the aisle, and bowed my knees at the alter. I remember Bro. Kistler putting his hands on my shoulder, and praying with me. Afterward he told me to write it down in my Bible, I did and I still have that Bible. I gave my life for the spreading of God`s Word that night.

And there he was, bro. Kistler. The man that got me into the ministry that I know God has prepared and is preparing me for. It was a very special thing for me. I went to him, told me my name and how he was used by God to change my life at such a young age. We had a great talk. I don`t know about the rest of Bro. Kistler`s ministry, but it changed my life. That`s my opinion...well...That`s my story. Take it or leave it. - Dean

The Biblical Role of women in regard to Leadership

2009-01-22T22:35:00.007-05:00

A couple days ago I wrote a blog about supporting the president. And a comment was made about women being in authority over the nation. I am not rebuking that comment, but I am exploring what the Bible has to say about that issue.

Did you know that the word woman comes up in the Bible 382 times? And the word "women" comes up a meager 186 times? Of the hundreds of accounts of this word in God's inspired Word, only a few regard leadership, other than the family.

There are two main passages that the Bible uses to explicitly talk about this issue. So we will look at both of them separately, exegete them, and then I will give a conclusion of thoughts. These passages are I Corinthians 14:34-35, and I Timothy 2:11-14

I Corinthians 14:34-35:

"The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."

Paul tells the believers in Corinth that women were not "permitted to speak." Does this mean that they couldn't’t utter a word once they entered the church? This word for speak comes from the Greek word laleo which could be interpreted to preach.

So basically that statement just means that they should not preach. And also at the end of the verse it says "it is shameful for a woman to" and again the Greek word is laleo, which means to speak or preach.

I Timothy 2:11-14:

"Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over the man and; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."

The books of first and second Timothy is basically an instruction manual on how to be a pastor from Paul to his "son in the spirit" Timothy. Here Paul tells Timothy that a woman is not to teach or to exercise authority over a man. This means that she is not allowed to teach Biblical principles to men, she is not be a spiritual leader to a man.

She is not to be in authority over a man, this rules them out as pastors, elders, deacons, or any other office that would put them over a man.

This is because they are to remain quiet in the church. The men are supposed to be the leaders. Paul brings this point out by going all the way back to Adam and expounding on how he was formed firs in order for him to be the spiritual leader. We all know that he failed miserably as pointed out by Eve eating of the fruit. But the point is still made

Conclusion:

So, what we can learn overall is that the Bible is clearly and undeniably against women being pastors or leaders in the church. This flies in the face of many churches. I can think of a lot of churches that have women pastors.

I'm not trying to be rude, but when I think that so many woman pastors are around, frankly it scares me. A pastor is supposed to be well studied, or as I like to say "constantly immersed in God's Word." And for someone to have been supposedly so "smart" about God's Word to blatantly disregard this command from Paul, AN APOSTLE OF CHRIST, is to be honest a very scary thing. What else would these "preachers" be wrong on? They could be, and to be honest in most occasions are, leading Christians astray.

To those who would say that it was a cultural thing for them to be against woman preachers in that day. And that it no longer relates to us, because our culture is for woman leadership in the church. I say this: Are you going to let culture determine how you interpret God's Word? You should let God's Word determine how you interpret culture!! If God's word says it, then that settles it!

Now, that is all the Bible talks explicitely about when it comes to women being in leadership. It's wrong for them to be pastors or teachers of men in the church. That's it!

Take for example your boss. Your boss might be a woman, what's wrong with that? She is in authority above you, but that does not go against God's Word does it? No, it does not.

A woman could very well be the president of United States, and there would be absolutely nothing wrong with that in regard to the Scriptures. The Bible is only against women being in authority over men in regard to the church and to the family. And that is all. That's my opinion. Take it, or leave it. - Dean

Breakdown of the "ups and downs" of President Obama's Inauguration

2009-01-20T19:08:00.004-05:00

Over the last year and some, Barack Obama has been promising for change and today I think everyone could attest that they felt like they were getting it when he was sworn in. It was a good day for all the African-Americans of our great country. A great story as well. His father came to America with nothing and now his son is the 44th President of the great United States of America. A touching story in that aspect.

Despite my political ideals and allegiances to the Republican party, I have to say that today had quite a few excellent surprises; a few "ups." Such as now former President Bush and his graciousness in helping President Obama with his transition. The thousands of people that flowed into the streets of our capital just to say "I was there." That was truly inspiring to see. Also, Rick Warren gave the invocation a.k.a prayer, praying in the name of " Yeshua, Isa, Jesus [Spanish pronunciation], Jesus". Obama forgetting his line when swearing in was also pretty hilarious.

I was proud of President Obama's firm belief in the United States. He said multiple times that this truly is the most powerful and blessed nation on the earth. He also said that he was not content with the way things are going. He will bring change. He implied many times that he would use our military power if necessary, with statements such as "And so, to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more."... "And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that, "Our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken. You cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."

There were also a fair share of "downs." There was the continual bashing and open rebuke of former President Bush from President Obama. The constant implication of "happiness" being the reason for freedom. Such as Obama's comment toward the beginning of the speech, "the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness." I don't know about you, but I have a feeling that he was implying gay rights toward the end of that statement.

He also took God's most precious Word out of context. He said,"We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things." That was a little frustrating, twisting the Word of God to fit into his agenda, to be honest it sounded a lot like some preachers today. Also, Obama stressed preserving energy and finding new ways to create energy. He's not joking about this folks. I'm honestly a little afraid of the tactics he will use to accomplish this feet. But time will tell.

President Obama's speech was all about change. He said, "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.
Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end." I'm not sure about you, but I don't think that our system is broken, maybe a little off in some spots though.

There was the prayer form the "conservative" pastor Rick Warren. Although he prayed in Jesus' name, there were so many things wrong with his theology evident in his prayer. Such as Rev. King in Heaven shouting for Obama. That was interesting. He also seemed very weak when he did pray in Jesus' name, saying that He prays in the name "of the one who changed my life" that's great, but as I recall he said that he was going to pray in the name of the "the Son of the Living God- the Lord, Jesus Christ." It was disappointing to say the least. I did not expect much though, I'm happy that he at least mentioned Jesus Christ.

I won't even talk about the other prayer, I mean come on. Alright, I will. Rev Joseph Lowery said he was hoping for the day "When brown can stick around. When yellow can be mellow. When the red man can be the head man. And when white will embrace what is right." Oh yeah because that's not offensive? Give me a break.

Overall it was a day that we can tell our grandchildren about. A day that a wall of segregation was torn down. A good day for all minorities everywhere. A "bad" day for Republicans. But I urge you to pray and respect our new President. He needs Christ, just the same as any other person.

Pray for President Obama for his salvation, for his protection, and for wisdom. Pray for our nation, that we will continue to hold to our precious Constitution. Remember what I said in my last blog. Remember what Jesus told us in Matthew 28:20 "Behold, I am with you, even unto the end of the age." To which I echo the words of the apostle John in Revelation 22. Even so Lord Jesus come quickly! Also remember we can still say "God bless America!" That's my opinion take it or leave it. - Dean

Supporting the new President

2009-01-17T17:47:00.001-05:00

Well, its one of those times again. Time to usher in a new president and all his ideas of grandeur. President Bush will be replaced this Tuesday when Barack Obama is inaugurated. Just for the record, I didn't vote for the guy. In fact very few fundamental conservative Christians did. Obama only carried 24% of evangelicals. Although, he did far better with younger Christians carrying 39% of their votes.

I think its pretty clear where Christians stood. They did not want Obama as their commander-in-chief. But despite our efforts Obama did win, and he is going to be our president come Tuesday. This is causing much bitterness in the evangelical Christian community.

I realize that there are dozens of things wrong with this guy, such as his view on domestic affairs, his views on foreign affairs, his desires for furthering the homosexual movement, and most importantly his view on abortion laws. Oh, and i forgot to mention the fact that he has requested that gay rights activist,Bishop Gene Robinson of the Anglican Communion, lead the prayer at the Lincoln Memorial tomorrow. He is also pro-Palestinians, and is not as pro-Israel as you might think. There are very good reasons why conservative Christians are upset about the way the election turned out.

But like I said, Barack Obama is going to be our president, and we must accept that. I've heard so many people say that they are not going to pray for a "Muslim president" this kind of thinking is wrong. Yes, he is of a different belief then ours but he is still our future president. Everyone always remembered to pray for President Bush because he was a man of the same faith, a good man in my view. But we must remember that as our leader Barack Obama demands our respect and prayers.

Paul tells us in I Timothy 2:2 to pray for kings and all those in high positions. This definitely means that we should pray for our president. Notice how it says pray for your leaders, and nothing is said about if they are good or bad leaders, whether they are Christians or not. It simply says pray for them. That is one of our duties as Christians.

I know that the future of the United States seems bleak right now. But pray, pray earnestly and fervently for our nation. Pray that we will keep supporting Israel, which is definitely beneficial as Genesis 12:1-3 states. Pray that we will not stand against Israel, because if we do according to the same verse we will be cursed.

So when Tuesday rolls around, don't be depressed know that you serve a Sovereign God who is in total control. Everything will work out remember these verses: 2 Peter 3:10-11 tells us that these earthly things shall pass away, Ephesians 2:19 and Philippians 3:20 tells us that our citizenship is in Heaven. We are just sojourners or aliens in this world, in this nation, we need to focus on eternity. And if anything remember what Jesus told us in Matthew 28:20 "Behold, I am with you, even unto the end of the age."
Even so, we can still say "God bless America!" That's my opinion take it or leave it. - Dean

Thinking Critically: Good for the Christian mind or Bad for the Body of Christ?

2009-01-15T23:18:00.001-05:00

Lately, I've noticed a trend in our society. People don't like to judge the truth about what other people say. When I say judge, I mean that they do not like to discern. I have been told lately that I think too critically about people and how they use God's Word. I was told that I was being too negative. What's happened to the Christian world?

Now, people view thinking critically as a negative thing. At least that’s the way people will treat you if you do so. So what exactly does it mean to think critically? The dictionary describes thinking critically as thinking with “skillful judgment as to truth, merit, etc”. So by definition it is thinking carefully to discover or judge that which is true. That’s what thinking critically means.

There was a time when people were encouraged. No, they were commanded to think critically and especially regarding God's Word. I mean come on! The Burean church searched the Scriptures making sure that the APOSTLE PAUL was correct. Paul told us to do the same. In Philippians 4:8 Paul tells us to “think on” or as the Greek tells us to “estimate or conclude” what is true.

We as Christians are to think critically. The apostle Paul says in Ephesians 5:15 that we need to "See that you walk circumspectly". Everyone always rushes to the word "circumspectly" when they read this verse. But let’s start with the verb. It says “See that” this comes from the Greek word blepo meaning to see; or to take heed. So Paul says take heed or be aware that you walk circumspectly. The word walk comes from the Greek word peripateo, which means the way you live. The way you live takes both aspects of the way you think, and the way you act. Circumspectly means diligently; cautiously or carefully. So you are to take heed be aware that you act and think carefully or cautiously. That is what the verse means. This verse essentially commands that we think critically.

There are dangers when it comes to critical thinking. One danger is that usually thinking critically and judging others goes hand-in-hand. I believe that this is the reason why people have turned away from critical thinking. People see someone talking poorly about someone or something, and the first thing that they think of is judging. They will run to Matthew 7:1 and say that Christ tells us not to judge one another. Which is true in one aspect. If one would take the time to look at the context one would find that Christ only disapproves of one type of judging, hypocritical judging. The Bible says we are to discern what is true, as already stated above.

Another danger is that we can become too condescending when we think critically and also act on it. We are to speak the truth in love as Ephesians 4:15 states. This means that we are to not to be critical just for the sake of being critical. We are to discern what is true and if we come into contact with error we are to confront that error with Biblical truth. And it is to be done in humility and brotherly love. We are supposed to think critically, but we must also be sure that our motives are right. That’s my opinion, take it or leave it. - Dean